quote:I don't understand how one could be wrong about this. Does there exist a non-arbitrary definition of "human?" Are you appealing to a deity, here? How would I find out about it, if I were wrong?
quote:Arguing purely secularly, the only definition of "human" that makes sense is "whatever we decide is human," because there is no outside authority we can appeal to. Therefore, we can know whether an embryo is human or not : Look it up in a book of law.
There is a BIG problem with the idea that the difference between a person and a non-person is an arbitrary line.
After all, we say it is not acceptable to kill people, but is sometimes acceptable to kill nonpeople. If it were true that the difference between a person and a nonperson was a totally arbitrary definition, that means that we arbitrarily decide who we can kill and who we can't.
Isn't there something terribly wrong with the idea that the acceptability of killing any given X is decided in a totally arbitrary fashion?
No, right and wrong doesn't work like that. If something is a terribly wrong thing to do there should be some reason why it is a terribly wrong thing to do. Furthermore, we don't normally make laws for totally arbitrary reasons either. If we insist on something being illegal, there should be a reason why we insist on it being illegal.
Thus, there MUST be some nonarbitrary characteristics that differentiate persons (who we can't kill) from non-persons (who we can kill.) Furthermore, whatever those characteristics are, they must be such that they would justify us allowing the murder of one and not the other.
And considering that half of the population seems to think a fetus IS a person, and the other half seems to think it is not, I think it is safe to say there is some confusion about what those critical characteristics are and whether or not a fetus has them. I think it is safe to say, however you think about it right now, there is a possibility you will discover you were wrong. So, yes, you could be wrong about the personhood status of a fetus.
As for my argument, I think it has been explained well already by others. The hidden assumption is that if you MIGHT be murdering a person by committing some act, you shouldn't risk it without a very compelling reason (and I'd argue "because you'd like to have sex" is not compelling enough.)
posted
You seem to be arguing that "X would be really terrible; therefore, not-X." If there are indeed non-arbitrary characteristics that make someone human, surely you should be able to tell me what they are?
That said, in practice I don't think the decision is quite as arbitrary as all that. For example, everybody agrees - I mean, absolutely everybody who has ever seen me in person - that I am human. That's something on the order of (rough estimate) several tens of thousands of people, and they all made the same decision. It's not even as though they had to think about it.
I think the decision is fairly automatic after birth; human brains are pretty good at recognising patterns, even if we can't write down exactly what separates "hairy human" from "shaved chimp."
But an embryo at a sufficiently early stage in the pregnancy does not have that pattern, the one that says "Human : Get ready to fight / mate / negotiate." (Please note, I said 'sufficiently early'. You may feel as you like about when life begins, but I defy anyone to look at an eight-cell human and an eight-cell dog and pick out the human.) That's why it's even something to argue about.
My point is that there is a large group of people that everybody agrees are human; to wit, ones that have been born and are still alive. And I think few people would argue that an eight-month child is nonhuman either. Conversely, a sperm cell or an unfertilised egg are definitely not human. Somewhere between those two extremes a change takes place; I feel that whether the line is drawn at conception, or fifteen weeks after, is rather arbitrary. But the choice between fifteen weeks, and nine months, is not so arbitrary, because (to the best of my knowledge) everybody makes the same choice. (Well, in the strict sense we could in principle decide that abortion was legal to eighteen years of age. But no-one would seriously suggest that a sixteen-year-old was nonhuman.)
I am appealing, here, to what you can think of as either an inbuilt sense of morals, or an evolutionary pattern-recognition and species-protection device, as you choose; namely that humans seem to have a strong inhibition against killing other humans that we recognise as such. But embryos are not, until about three months into the pregnancy, instinctively labeled "human." Therefore, the decision as regards them does not depend on our inbuilt moral sense, or inbuilt pattern-recognition if you prefer, and is in that sense arbitrary.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to be arguing that "X would be really terrible; therefore, not-X."
No, I'm arguing X implies Y and Y is absurd, therefore not X. In this case the absurdity is the notion that the legitimacy of killing any given X is determined in a totally arbitrary fashion.
Unless you are willing to accept that there is no reason why killing a given person is wrong (and hence that we could just as well allow all killing)...
quote:If there are indeed non-arbitrary characteristics that make someone human, surely you should be able to tell me what they are?
Why should I be able to? I'm not omniscient. Just because two things are different in a nonarbitrary way doesn't mean I understand that difference sufficiently to explain it to you (nor does it mean you'd believe me if I did.)
Incidently, if you want to know what I believe, I'd argue a person is someone who experiences existence. A nonperson does not.
quote:I am appealing, here, to what you can think of as either an inbuilt sense of morals, or an evolutionary pattern-recognition and species-protection device, as you choose; namely that humans seem to have a strong inhibition against killing other humans that we recognise as such. But embryos are not, until about three months into the pregnancy, instinctively labeled "human." Therefore, the decision as regards them does not depend on our inbuilt moral sense, or inbuilt pattern-recognition if you prefer, and is in that sense arbitrary.
Firstly, saying someone is human because they fit a pattern is different from saying some is arbitrarily called a human. Fitting a pattern is, in fact, a nonarbitrary characteristic.
Secondly, all you are talking about here is how we decide whether we think someone is a human. That is not the issue. The issue is who actually IS a human.
You have suggested that it is impossible for what we believe about X's personhood to be false - that it is impossible to be wrong about who is a human. And you said that is because there is no difference between humans and nonhumans, other than we believe humans are humans and we believe nonhumans are nonhumans.
While you are correct that we have a pattern-recognition system for determining who we THINK are human, that does not in any way prove that us thinking something is human makes it necessarily human.
Consider a robot that looks like a human, for instance. Suppose we believe it is a human, but then discover that we were wrong - that it is a robot, not a human. Is such a situation possible? If you are correct in your claims that a human is nothing more than what we believe is a human, we could not be wrong - the robot was a human because we believed it was human. But it's pretty clear we could find ourselves in that situation, if such a robot existed. We could be wrong about its personhood! And thus personhood is determined by more than just whether or not we beleive it is a person.
Or consider the possibility that someone met you and decided you are not human. Would that make you not human? If your personhood is determined solely by what we beleive about personhood, it would - you would cease being human the second we stopped believing you were human (and we could kill you too!) But isn't that absurd? Aren't you certain you would continue to be a person even if everyone else thought you were a robot or a hallucination? I know I would be.
posted
I wonder why there are hardly any(none I've ever seen) debates in this forum where a person says " You shouldn't drive a car unless you are prepared to face the consequences of killing or injuring someone" ? Millions of people get in their cars and drive them without thinking. No one I know thinks thats a sin. Yet millions of people are killed every year from car accidents....... Why does sex cause such heated debates and this topic probably wouldn't?
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'd be a little more correct to compare car accidents to STDs, not pregnancy. Pregnancy is the primary purpose of sex, whereas killing people isn't (for most people) why we drive cars.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot more to the consequences of sex than the potential harmful ones. There is emotional involvement as well.
And when we are talking about young people, they often are not quite ready for that level of involvement. Not only that, this doesn't happen in emotional isolation. Perhaps the girl is compensating for having no father, or for having an abusive family. She is looking for love and validation through sex. She doesn't yet know the difference between love and sex. I'm far more worried about someone like her than someone who grew up in a stable, loving environment. Unfortunately, these are the least likely people to recieve a healthy education about sex and love from their parents.
Which is why things like sex education in our public schools is important, and why this sex education should start early (pre-puberty) and should include lessons on emotional health as well as or even more than STDs and pregnancy. A well designed program will allow and make children feel comfortable with both moral, logical, or emotional abstinance and methods of protection. Loving and informed parents will supplement this in the way they see best, and the child without such a family will recieve the information they need.
All that said, driving a car is not a very good analogy to sex. You don't need sex, but you do need to go to work or school or get food at the store. In our society, driving is often the only way to do this. Besides, no one under the age of 16 is allowed to drive a car because they aren't generally responsible enough. Their lack of responsibility is so proven that some states are considering raising the age of driving to 18, and our state has made it a law that no teenager under 18 can drive other teenagers (Almost every teenage accident involves other teens in the car).
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alot of people are talking about how sex kills people Frisco..... But I don't suppose you have to debate whether it was a human or just a bunch of cells you hit in your car:P
And I've heard of alot of people getting emotional over driving. Road rage... the feeling you get when you hit someone or kill someone.....the nervousness of driving for the first time....thrill....excitement....boy racers souping up their cars to make them go faster/look better/feel better.....the families of the people that have been killed by car accidents....the families of the people whos relative has killed somebody by car accident....decisions in a car made stupid by alcohol or drugs or adrenaline.
It's probably just me but alot of this sounds like a good comparison to sex. Some people don't learn a healthy education about driving from their parents either, like watching either of them get road rage or being to passive on the road.
In New Zealand you can get a full licence to drive by 16 and also have sex at 16.
lol, damn at first I was just wondering and now I'm arguing about something I don't even know if I believe myself all for the sake of arguing. Fun a? Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone on hatrack has ever argued that people should have sex willy-nilly. There is a difference between saying that "marriage should be the line" and "each must decide for themselves."
And driving is not necessary unless you live in a town with zero public transportation and zero carpooling. Millions of people in major towns could use public transportation. It's the mindset in the US that we need to have our own cars, but it's a false one.
Again, not everyone needs sex. Well, perhaps no one needs sex. But I get very angry when people judge my ability to choose to have sex. They're implying character judgement when it's not their place. In fact, they're usually pushing their own version of reality onto my own. A reality in which women get married to men, and they want to have and raise children.
I believe that sex-positive principles are part of helping individuals learn and take care of themselves. Education, safety, self-comfort.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I get very angry when people judge my ability to choose to have sex. They're implying character judgement when it's not their place. In fact, they're usually pushing their own version of reality onto my own. A reality in which women get married to men, and they want to have and raise children.
That said, I think I've previously come down closer to the "sex willy-nilly" side of the argument before.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
how do you define sex willy-nilly? Perhaps we just have differing opinions. Though maybe you _were_ a pure hedonist....
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pYx and Baldar are the only people I've ever seen Tom furious at. *muses* She was friends with Ethics Gradient, who may or may not still be around here somewhere.
That said, I think I've previously come down closer to the "sex willy-nilly" side of the argument before.
You have, actually--the only person I've seen here who advocated it more strongly was pYx. And yes, she was a bit of a bitch--very quick witted, very funny, and not at all kind. Mostly I think she was just too young to have really developed into a decent human being(not that one has to be a certain age to be a decent human being--she just hadn't gotten there yet, it seemed to me). I have a feeling that a 30 year old version of her would be much more plesant and interesting to interact with than was the late teens (I assume) version that we were exposed to.
It seems to me that it IS their place to judge your capacity to have sex. If you are harming yourself by choosing to have sex, anyone who cares about you should feel the need to try to convince you otherwise. That's their moral duty as a friend, or even as a neighbor. It does not imply a judgement of your character. It implies a judgement of your ACTIONS.
It may make you angry when people say you shouldn't be having sex, but I'm sure it also makes drug users angry when people say they shouldn't do drugs, or when people tell gun owners they should not own their guns, or when racists are told they should not hate minorities, and so on. Sex is no more unworthy of judgement than any of these things. It is unrealistic to blame people for having moral views on what you do.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets see if I can figure out the extreme arguments...
I don't think everyone should go around having sex whenever. Nor do I think it's necessarily wrong to refuse to have sex in a committed relationship (I worry that it might be a symptom of an actual problem, self-esteem/self-worth. Of course people who have sex can fall into that trap as well).
However, I find it perfectly acceptable that some people have a lot of sex, and sex with people they don't know that well. Those people can be perfectly well adjusted, emotionally stable people. They aren't always, but it's not unheard-of. Does that make sense?
Of course there are consequences to your actions. But I wouldn't call someone depraved, immoral, or wrong because they've chosen to deal with those possible results (such as STDs).
Again. I think the most important part of the Sex Equation is knowing yourself. For your own emotional and physical safety, you should be educated and comfortable. No matter if you're going to have sex or not.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, the fact that people find it wrong doesn't make it wrong every time. Sure, you can bring out some examples where the general population would agree, but you can bring out countless other examples where a group shouts "Immoral!" but the general public would disagree (and I'm using general public, because true absolute morality is somewhat impossible to define here).
I can certainly blame people for judging me. What else would I do? Accept their advice is right? Ignore them? It seems that disagreeing and arguing against their opinion is my only reasonable option.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A person makes their decisions based on what THEY think is right, not based on what the general public think is right. Thus, if THEY think sex is wrong, they should be acting in accordance with that, in just the same way that the general public acts in accordance with whatever IT thinks is wrong.
In response, I think accepting, ignoring, or disagreeing are all options you have. However, to blame someone or get angry at them is something entirely different. That doesn't mean you disagree with them - that means you think it was wrong of them to even express their opinion to you. But the truth is, if from their perspective sex is wrong, then they should be acting as if sex were wrong, and thus should be discouraging it just as much as you would discourage something you think is wrong. To blame them for not acting under their assumptions as you would act under your assumptions is not fair.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my discussion in this has been a little messy. Lets see if I can set up some sort of structure.
1) People have opinions. Everyone has opinions.
Now you described reactions to people's opinions as "fair" or "unfair." That's different from "right" or "wrong"?
So negative emotions, emotions by the Golden Rule you wouldn't want applied to yourself, like "anger" and "hatred" you think shouldn't occur. Maybe do you think that these should never happen, no matter what?
If we're working on that assumption, then I certainly can't convince you that in these specific circumstances they're not "wrong."
What gets to me is what I view as person A having beliefs that will eventually crowd my own beliefs. I wish everyone could have their own beliefs without conflicting with everyone else. Obviously, this is impossible. But what I guess is funny is that I don't see my beliefs as getting into their lives as their beliefs get into my life. This comes through with things like gay-marriage legislation. I view passing it to be less interference with them and they see banning it as relieving themselves of the perceived interference. Things like sex-education and overall views of sexuality will eventually affect the way I lead my life. I see person B as leading their sex-positive life as having less effect on person A's life than person A's moral-opinions having an effect on person B's ability to lead their life.
So part of this anger, which I admit is more annoyance at this point, is this realistic concern that it's not just "their opinion," but that they try to change the general public to force me into their opinion. Because as you said, what's an opinion if you don't think it's right? But my opinion doesn't force them to live my life. It might force them to live next to my life. But is that really worse than me living theirs?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But what I guess is funny is that I don't see my beliefs as getting into their lives as their beliefs get into my life.
I have to disagree. Those of us who feel very strongly about the "no sex outside marriage" thing are bombarded by sex in the media all the time. Our children are pressured to listen to sexual song lyrics, watch movies in which casual sex is glorified, watch their friends make choices that differ from their sense of morality....
I think I speak for anyone in this category that we feel the interferance of those beliefs very much. For all the criticizm past generations get, they had a culture in which it would have been *far* easier to raise children not to have sex outside marriage than the culture today.
quote: I see person B as leading their sex-positive life as having less effect on person A's life than person A's moral-opinions having an effect on person B's ability to lead their life.
Your argument only works if this is true. And when person A does not agree that this is true?
=---
It's also not an equal analogy - your set up is unfair.
Person B's life ----> Person A's life Person A's opinions ----> Person B's life
What about when Person B's opinions affect Person A's life?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, perhaps we can both agree that the Media is a problem in and of itself. I think if you look at other countries and compare them to America, a comfortable attitude toward sex doesn't necessarily mean bombarding your children with kinky billboards.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think if you look at other countries and compare them to America, a comfortable attitude toward sex doesn't necessarily mean bombarding your children with kinky billboards.
Yes, and I am grateful for that. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if Person A is: It is my personal belief that we should not have sex outside marriage. I understand you have a different moral code.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your breakdown still isn't quite fair. Person B's opinion is described as personally relevant and uses positive terms. Person A's opinion is described as other-centered and uses negative terms.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: What if Person A is: It is my personal belief that we should not have sex outside marriage. I understand you have a different moral code.
I have no problem with that at all, to each their own. It's when someone persistently and repeatedly tries to convince me that I'm wrong and should believe what they do, in the face of my repeated polite refusals to do so, that it gets irritating.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found Scott R's bluntness offensive too. But having gotten to know Scott R's posting style a little, bit, it fits. I don't think he meant any more harm than Storm did in his "WOMEN" thread. I could be wrong though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stray: Does that happen a lot? People come up to you and tell you what to do with your sex life in the middle of a conversation about the weather?
Forums and news outlets don't count - their raison d'etre is to provide a place to talk about these things. You can't be upset for people talking about them there.
quote: It's when someone persistently and repeatedly tries to convince me that I'm wrong and should believe what they do, in the face of my repeated polite refusals to do so, that it gets irritating.
I figure those efforts can be both futile and harmful when the person holds a different moral code. If they have the same moral code as you, then you have common ground to start from.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
People expressing their opinions here doesn't count - it's expressly designed to talk about our opinions. Bringing it up at a parent/teacher conference or a casual chat about the weather would be annoying, but I don't think happens all that often.
Maybe bumper stickers? I've been thinking about bumper stickers lately because I live in the gay part of town and work in the wildly conservative part of town and I've seen both sides of the gay marriage debate championed explicitly on the cars in front of me.
posted
Heh...no, not quite like that, and it happens less than it used to because I've taken to avoiding conversational topics that would lead to discussion of the less traditional aspects of my life (sex life and otherwise). During adolescence I felt the need to be more "out" about things and defend myself and my choices when the topic came up, but I don't often have the time, energy, or wish anymore. Part of growing up, I suppose.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Nobody can force you to do anything merely by having an opinion. In fact, nobody can force you to do anything by merely expressing that opinion either. It's up to you whether or not to decide to agree with their views. Thus, there really is no such thing as one person's opinion "crowding" another's. And hence it is not their opinion you should be mad at.
It is someone's ACTIONS that can crowd you. Passing laws, starting a lynch mob against you, protesting at your house, etc - these are the things that restrict your autonomy. And I don't see anything unfair about being very angry at these actions - because although they may feel a moral duty to try to help you as a friend, it is pretty clear that we also have a duty to respect others' freedom of choice. It is realistic to expect others to let you do what you choose to do, to at least some degree.
However, we were not talking about actions. We were talking about the beliefs themselves. We are not talking about legistlation to ban sex, just the mere opinion that your having sex is wrong. The question was, is it fair to get angry at someone merely because they have judged your decision to have sex as wrong? And this by itself, as I argued above, in no way restricts your freedom to do and believe what you want.
posted
Katharina, I found beverly's "my views and your views" to be perfectly reasonable and fair.
Feel free to write up Person A and Person B in both positive words as you see fit. As you see, I have no problem with Beverly's rewrite. But my problem isn't with Beverly. She's been very good about accepting other people's beliefs as their own.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
